Hamas Wins !!!

mysterymasn, your post on conquest is remarkable. And it's an attitude that if taken by Israel will guarentee war and more war. Most Israelis would disagree with the idea of keeping the land taken in 67. And your premise that Israel was attacked is contradicted by the testimoney of at least two major players. "Both Yitzak Rabin and Menachem Begin were to contradict the common belief that the 1967 war was a defensive attack on the part of Israel. Both claimed publicly that Israel knew Nasser was not planning to attack. His troop movements were the pretext for a long planned Israeli move to gain more territory. Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 29, 1968, as saying, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." On August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Begin made a speech saying, "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (New York Times, August 21, 1982)." http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/1967_third_arab.htm

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

OE,
You do realize that EVERY country on earth has expanded its borders by conquest at on time or another.

I dont know where in Eurpoe you live,but lets take two examples.

It used to be said that "the sun never set on the British Empire",and that was true.
They had colonies and territories all over the world.
ALL of them aquired by military conquest.

France also has colonies all over the world,also gained by military conquest.

Yup. And both of 'em had to give those up, as well.

mysteryman wrote:

While it would be nice if Israel withdrew,there is no reason they should.

Well, there's the fact that a majority of Israelis want to cede the occupied territories, or at least most of 'em... that could be a good reason ...

0 Replies

Blue Flame: I'll grant you your grain of hope and even admit to sharing it. However; offering a temporary truce in exchange for a total withdrawal of lands occupied for generations reads like a poorly camouflaged attempt to appear to have taken a moderate position. My grain of hope comes from experience in negotiation: It is possible that this current peace offer may be just a starting point that could build into a full-scale, long term aggreement once the bartering is done. It may well be that Hamas is ready to recognize the two State solution as golden, but doesn't want to enter negotiations with nothing left to offer. Ultimately, Israel is in a much better position for bargaining, so I think Hamas would do better to appear more willing to compromise than they have thus far.

At the end of the day; it is at Israel's discretion to allow Hamas's continued reign, should the situation deteriorate into a defacto state of war. As Finn pointed out earlier; gone is the opportunity to right off future Hamas attacks as mere criminal or terrorist crime. The Palestinian's have a new accountability for their choices and it may well come back to haunt them in the very near future. I hope, like you do, that the voices of reason are able to overcome the hardliners on both sides of the ball but nevertheless remain doubtful Hamas is really prepared to turn such a corner. Sadly, I'd say a "grain of hope" is quite accurate.

0 Replies

Occum Bill, I'm happy with the grain for now. Of course negotiations have begun and both sides are needlessly saying if you attack me I will make you pay. That stuff dont even need to be said. There's plenty of reason for each side to not trust the other. On the other hand before the elections Hamas was not even involved in the negotiations which gave negotiations no chance. Now everyone is involved. May the will of the majorities prevail.

0 Replies

Blue,
Should the US give up all of the territory we gained thru military conquest?

0 Replies

mysteryman,

if you're saying that there wasn't any reason for the British to give up their American colonies and they were just taken by force, then you're basically on the Palestinians' side.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

mysteryman,

if you're saying that there wasn't any reason for the British to give up their American colonies and they were just taken by force, then you're basically on the Palestinians' side.

No,but I am talking about everything west of the original colonies,I am talking about Hawaii,I am talking about Guam,I am talking about the Virgin Islands,I am talking about Saipan,I am talking about Puerto Rico,I am talking about all US territories and possessions.

Should the US give up everything except the original 13 colonies?

0 Replies

Wasn't Louisiana (not today Lousiana, but the whole area from the Mexican Gulf to the Pacific) bought from France?

And why do you think that the US rightfully own those 13 colonies? They were British, right?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Wasn't Louisiana (not today Lousiana, but the whole area from the Mexican Gulf to the Pacific) bought from France?

And why do you think that the US rightfully own those 13 colonies? They were British, right?

No,here is a map of the Louisiana purchase...
http://gatewayno.com/history/LaPurchase.html

Tell me,how was that Frances land to sell?
We still had to take it away from the varius tribes living there.
The land west of that belonged to Spain/Mexico.

The 13 colonies?
Do you mean the land that the British took from the Dutch in the northeast
(New Amsterdam became New York).
We forced the British out and declared our independence,thats true.

But,that doesnt answer my question.
Do we give up all of the territory we have gained since then?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

The 13 colonies?

[...]

We forced the British out and declared our independence,thats true.

And... why? Wasn't it "rightfully" conquered by the British?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
The 13 colonies?

[...]

We forced the British out and declared our independence,thats true.

And... why? Wasn't it "rightfully" conquered by the British?

Yes,it was.
And we took it from them.

Whats your point?

0 Replies

Oh, it just seems to me that the Palestinians are fighting against Israel for exactly the same reasons the colonists were fighting against the British. Hence my remark that you naturally seemed to be on the Palestinians' side.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Oh, it just seems to me that the Palestinians are fighting against Israel for exactly the same reasons the colonists were fighting against the British. Hence my remark that you naturally seemed to be on the Palestinians' side.

Why are the Palestinians fighting against Israel?
Do they want independence?
Do they want more land?
Why havent their "allies" in the region like Syria,Lebanon,and the other Arab countries given them land?

If they are fighting for "independence",then so far they have lost the fight.
We won our independence only AFTER France intervened and provided troops and a navy.
If it is so important to the region that the Palestinians be independent,they why havent the other Arab countries provided arms,material,or logistic support?

I think the other countries in the region are providing "lip service" to Palestinian independence,but thats all.

0 Replies

Why are the Palestinians fighting against Israel? Yes, I do think they want independence. And I do think they they want more land.

Why haven't countries like Syria, Lebanon and others given them land? Political reasons. Not very nice, I agree. Palestinias are still living in refugee camps in those countries, while they could have been integrated into the respective countries' societies. But like that, the pressure on Israel (Right of Return etc) would have gradually faded into nothingness. Something that was not wished for. Policital reasons.

But we are talking about the other countries here, whereas the original topic was the Palestinians.

I agree that the Palestians have lost their struggle for independence. So far. You (speaking to you as an American) have won independence after France, Prussia, Indian tribes etc. helped the colonists fight their rightful government.

So, from what you have written, that sounds to me as if we should make an effort to support the Palestinians in their struggle for independence.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Oh, it just seems to me that the Palestinians are fighting against Israel for exactly the same reasons the colonists were fighting against the British. Hence my remark that you naturally seemed to be on the Palestinians' side.

The Americans did not vow to eliminate the nation of Great Britain. Small point that you might want to consider.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
Oh, it just seems to me that the Palestinians are fighting against Israel for exactly the same reasons the colonists were fighting against the British. Hence my remark that you naturally seemed to be on the Palestinians' side.

The Americans did not vow to eliminate the nation of Great Britain. Small point that you might want to consider.

You're right, they just wanted to eliminate the nation of Great Britain as far as British influence on the American continent was concerned.

On the other hand, I believe that a considerable number of Palestinians only want to eliminate Israeli influence as far as the Palestinian territories are concerned. Don't you think so?

0 Replies

OE,
Check your history.
Prussia fought on Britians side.

0 Replies

You're probably talking about the roughly 30,000 soldiers Britain hired from the principality of Hesse-Cassel.... Yes, that's true, those fought on Britains side.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

[You're right, they just wanted to eliminate the nation of Great Britain as far as British influence on the American continent was concerned.

On the other hand, I believe that a considerable number of Palestinians only want to eliminate Israeli influence as far as the Palestinian territories are concerned. Don't you think so?

If that were the case and the current leadership of the Palestinians only wanted that, then why didn't they jump at the chance to form a Palestinian State along with agreeing once and for all to leave Israel alone? Sadly, that does not seem to be their goal.

I apologize for popping in on this and interrupting here. I do like to read some of the threads that I don't follow real close, and offer a comment or two.

0 Replies

Some of your questions can quickly be answered here but I imagine there are better places on the web and people here who can get into it better.

0 Replies

Hamas Wins !!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know